Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai held that an addition under Section 69A cannot be sustained when the assessee is denied the opportunity to cross-exami...
Income Tax : Income without satisfactory explanation is taxed at a special high rate under Section 115BBE. The provisions place strict liabilit...
Income Tax : Explains the centralization of digital platforms, surveillance powers, and opaque governance. Key takeaway: citizens have limited ...
Income Tax : Detailed overview of penalties under various sections of the Income Tax Act, covering defaults in tax payment, reporting, document...
Income Tax : An overview of Sections 68-69D of India's Income-tax Act, which empower tax authorities to assess unaccounted income from unexplai...
Corporate Law : Details on Indian government's blocking of YouTube channels, citing IT Rules 2021 and Section 69A of IT Act 2000. Learn about reas...
Income Tax : ITAT Indore held that appellate order violated principles of natural justice after finding that key hearing notices were sent to a...
Income Tax : ITAT Rajkot held that cash deposits made during demonetization were fully supported by audited books of account, cash books, and b...
Income Tax : ITAT Hyderabad held that addition of Rs. 13 lakh under Section 69A through rectification proceedings exceeded the scope of Section...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that the reassessment notice issued on 26.07.2022 was beyond the permissible timeline under the surviving limita...
Income Tax : Tribunal dismissed a Revenue appeal after finding that additions were made solely on basis of entries in a seized Excel file. It h...
Analysis of the recent ITAT ruling on Pawan Satyanarain Jalan Vs Assessing Officer Central where the penalty under Section 271AAB of the Income Tax Act was deleted.
In the case of Sandeep Auraneebadkar vs. ITO, the ITAT Hyderabad partially deleted an addition made under section 69A of the Income Tax Act due to failure to explain credit card payments with supporting evidence.
ITAT Chennai held that addition towards unexplained money under section 69A of the Income Tax Act sustained as cash deposited during demonetization period cannot be said to be cash gifts received during occasion of marriage in December 2015.
Explore the PCIT Vs Goutam Chakraborty case where Calcutta High Court dismisses revenue’s appeal, upholding the deletion of additions under section 69A for seized gold.
The ITAT Chandigarh directs reassessment in a case where the appellant, Puran Singh, was unaware of a notice due to its delivery on his counsel’s e-mail ID, leading to the inability to provide explanations on cash deposits.
ITAT Pune held that that the amount surrendered under unrecorded stock has to be brought to tax under the head “business income” and no provision u/s. 115BBE of the Income Tax Act is attracted.
ITAT Kolkata held that addition towards unexplained cash credit u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act untenable as cash deposited during the demonetization period duly explained.
In the case of Rammohan Kordale vs ACIT, ITAT Bangalore held that money transferred between assessee’s joint bank accounts cannot be classified as unexplained money under Section 69A of Income Tax Act.
ITAT Delhi held that more specific plea and explanation ought to be given by an assessee for discharging burden u/s 69B of the Income Tax Act to explain jewelry beyond that mentioned in Wealth Tax Return.
Explore the verdict of ITAT Bangalore in the case of Hemavathi Ramesh Vs ITO, where cash deposits from earlier deposits were deemed taxable. Delve into the legal nuances and implications of the judgement.
